​From the world of alternative facts, a fake news story going viral on social media claims Giorgio Tsoukalos of Ancient Aliensappeared on L. A. Tonight, a local Los Angeles talk show, and alleged that space aliens used a brainwashing device that deploys sound waves to reprogram human brains in order to elect Donald Trump president. The program doesn’t exist, the screenshots of his appearance are actually from his guest spot on a 2011 episode of The Mo’Nique Show (with Mo’Nique misidentified as “Latifa Johnson”), and Tsoukalos had to take to Twitter on Saturday to deny that he claimed an alien space ray reprograms voters’ minds with pro-Trump propaganda.

​If only every intersection between Trump and fringe history were so humorous.

​In the current edition of Time magazine there is a profile of Donald Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart executive Stephen K. Bannon. The article explains that Bannon has an unusual view of history drawn from a goofy book about historical trends. The trouble is that this bit of pseudohistorical reasoning now has terrible consequences because Bannon is using the power of the White House to help fulfill his belief that we are in a moment of generational crisis that must end in a world-historical conflagration bigger than World War II. It’s scary stuff, especially since the underlying claims are so stupidly shortsighted. In order to understand them, let’s start with Time’s account of Bannon’s world-historical view.

Sometime in the early 2000s, Bannon was captivated by a book called The Fourth Turning by generational theorists William Strauss and Neil Howe. The book argues that American history can be described in a four-phase cycle, repeated again and again, in which successive generations have fallen into crisis, embraced institutions, rebelled against those institutions and forgotten the lessons of the past--which invites the next crisis. These cycles of roughly 80 years each took us from the revolution to the Civil War, and then to World War II, which Bannon might point out was taking shape 80 years ago. During the fourth turning of the phase, institutions are destroyed and rebuilt.

[…] But Bannon, who once called himself the “patron saint of commoners,” seemed to relish the opportunity to clean out the old order and build a new one in its place, casting the political events of the nation as moments of extreme historical urgency, pivot points for the world. Historian David Kaiser played a featured role in [Bannon’s documentary] Generation Zero, and he recalls his filmed interview with Bannon as an engrossing and enjoyable experience.

And yet, he told TIME, he was taken aback when Bannon began to argue that the current phase of history foreshadowed a massive new war. “I remember him saying, ‘Well, look, you have the American revolution, and then you have the Civil War, which was bigger than the revolution. And you have the Second World War, which was bigger than the Civil War,’” Kaiser said. “He even wanted me to say that on camera, and I was not willing.”

​According to Time, Bannon believes that the United States will enter into war with Islam and/or China as part of a cataclysmic—almost apocalyptic—reckoning with the rest of the world. Other reports suggest that the Trump Administration’s cozying up to Vladimir Putin is related to a desire to ally Protestant and Orthodox Christianity against Islam. Consider Bannon’s 2014 speech at the Vatican: “There is a major war brewing, a war that’s already global,” he said. “Every day that we refuse to look at this as what it is, and the scale of it, and really the viciousness of it, will be a day where you will rue that we didn’t act.” The similarities between Bannon’s dark vision of a final conflict between Christianity and Islam and the fever-dreams of Rapture-ready Christians, going back to the medieval myth of the Last World Emperor, is probably not a coincidence.

However, I want to look at this idea of the “fourth turning” that seems to govern Bannon’s historical worldview. (It was also a favorite of former Vice President Al Gore.) This idea is, to put it mildly, pretty silly. William Strauss and Neil Howe proposed it in embryo in 1991 and developed it in 1997. It’s based, ultimately if indirectly, on Greek ideas of the four ages of man—gold, silver, bronze, and iron. Although Strauss and Howe radically condense the ages of man down to repeating cycles of generations of humans, they ultimately fail in that they take a narrow view that myopically focuses on the American experience and relates it to the arbitrary concept of generations that was invented only in modern times—by the same authors!

The authors claim that history moves in cycles and these cycles of crisis emerge because, after a fixed period of time of around 80 years, the new leaders who have arisen lack personal memories of the last crisis and therefore tend to repeat the mistakes of their elders, causing the failure of institutions and the need to reestablish a world order after a new crisis.

On the surface, that seems reasonable, but in practice, the authors cherry pick data. Let’s take a look at their chart of key crises, which they define as occurring in the “Anglo-American Saeculum”—already a rather iffy proposition at best—and culminating in a “climax year” arbitrarily defined by the authors. In the chart below, the year in parentheses is this arbitrary climax year:

War of the Roses (1485)

Spanish Armada Crisis (1588) – 103 years later

Glorious Revolution (1688) – 100 years later

American Revolution (1781) – 92 years later*

Civil War (1863) – 82 years

Great Depression and World War II (1944) – 81 years

Global Financial Crisis (2029?) – 81 years

* I know the numbers don’t add up correctly. Ask the authors.

It ought to occur to anyone reading this that the list of crises is highly selective. Notice important parts missing from their analysis: World War I, arguably the more important war for the European world order it destroyed, is absent. The social upheaval of the 1960s, again arguably more disruptive to social structures than the global financial crisis that began in 2008, is again absent. (The authors consider the 1960s to be a minor reflection of challenges to the “social order,” equivalent to Thoreau’s transcendental awakening.) But more importantly, the authors’ own views don’t hold in the other half of the “Anglo-American Saeculum.” England didn’t experience an existential crisis in the years of the American Civil War, and indeed saw its period of greatest peace, prosperity, and imperial power during a phase when our authors claim a generational crisis occurred. How is it that the English were on the same generational cycle down to 1781 and then somehow failed to keep pace with their American cousins? For that matter, even the authors claim that the American Civil War happened 10 years too early for their scheme, necessitating an embarrassing ad hoc explanation of how America “skipped” a generation.

This worldview is also suspect because it depends on the idea that the human experience is not a continuum of individuals but a series of blocs of people grouped by arbitrary generational boundaries. The authors focus on the G. I. Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials, but surely these are arbitrary distinctions that emerge from the decision to take the end of World War II as, essentially, the Year Zero for defining modern American history. Indeed, it probably shouldn’t surprise you that Howe and Strauss are the inventors of American generations as we know them today. They defined Generation X and the Millennials in their 1991 book Generations, which also had the effect of retroactively turning the baby boom into a monolithic bloc of Baby Boomers. (The term “baby boomer” was first used in 1970 but didn’t become a generational title until after 1980.) Yes, they’ve spent 26 years trying to convince Americans that social attitudes change every 22 years or so like clockwork.

Oh, and it’s also worth noting that Howe and Strauss turned their hypothesis into a business, setting up a consulting firm to offer horoscope-like advice to governments, school systems, entertainment companies, and marketing firms based on generational stereotypes. Pseudohistory brings in those sweet, sweet dollar bills.

But similar to the claim that decades have their own color and character, the Howe and Strauss vision of history is a simplification. In general terms, people born at certain times are more likely to share the prevalent attitudes of the time, but those changes are not cataclysmic but gradual, and not shared universally, or even, necessarily, by a majority. (In essence, it would only require those who become social decision-makers. No one cares whether a farmhand fantasizes about social disintegration as long as the cow gets milked.) I was born in 1981, which is the cutoff on many charts between Generation X and Millennials. The stereotypes about neither fit me. People are born every year, not in groups of 20 years, which means that “generations” are simply an arbitrary grouping framed around selected events. There is no inherent reason to suggest the Baby Boom of 1943-1964 (or 1946-1964, or 1943-1969; no one can agree) is a more valid “generation” than any random assortment of about 20 years, such as 1929-1950, or 1950-1972. Mostly, it’s just the Baby Boomers imposing their own vanity on history, arguing that all of time should be measured backward and forward from their own births. Yes, I know it’s ironic to ascribe to an artificially defined generation collective blame for the artificial creation of generations. The size of the baby boom after World War II isn’t in dispute, however, and that war-induced demographic bulge created the accidental yardstick by which we create the myth of generations with almost astrological faith. (The fact that social scientists had to slice and dice Boomers into sub-groups like “leading edge boomers” because they are too heterogeneous should give pause that there is any merit to the concept.)

Consider this: If World War II had dragged on five more years, the baby boom would have been delayed and all our fanciful generational calculations would all be wrong and we would today be fantasizing about the shared attitudes of those born from 1948 to 1969. The point is that human populations are more like rainbows; the “generations” may have different colors, but they shade into one another and where we choose to draw the line—and, indeed, what colors we see—are an artifact of culture, not a fact of history.

To that end, the authors’ fantasies about American history similarly fail to find parallels around the world. We should expect that other countries would face similar crises on the same schedule, and yet they do not. Consider, for example, Russia, where upheavals took place due to the Crimean War, the reforms of Alexander II, the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, World War II, and, of course, the fall of communism in 1989-1991. The periods, as you might intuit, are irregular and cannot be ascribed to fixed cycles of generational changes.

The authors are probably right that every society goes through periods of integration and disintegration, and the weakening of institutions leads to periodic crises. But the authors are almost certainly wrong in choosing only those crises that fit their timeline to ascribe greater meaning to. Moreover, they are probably even more wrong in claiming that the periods of integration, disintegration, and crisis are governed by the mystical attitudes of generations. They believe that people born every twenty years or so develop a fixed set of attitudes, and these fall into four categories which repeat on a regular clockwork cycle: prophets (self-absorbed narcissists), nomads (alienated anti-establishment types), heroes (pragmatic team players), and artists (conformists). Each type follows a specific trajectory as they go through 20-year life stages, changing their attitudes and actions with each new stage; consequently, the gears of history turn like clockwork, defined by which of the four groups is in which of the four life stages, and thus which “dominates” each period. It’s kind of like astrology in its way, and narrowly focused on American culture. What the authors have ascribed to generations is probably more accurately seen as the push and pull of cultural actions and reactions, which have toggled between reason and romance, individualism and conformity since the colonial period. If there is any truth to their claim, it is probably in that young adults tend to reject the views of their elders that they see as outdated or ineffective, and then get sucked back in to the older cultural mainstream as they get old and tired.

To that end, it’s probably worth noting that the authors’ (American) conservative beliefs shine through in their 1993 book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, where they look to the upcoming generation (the 13th form the Founding) to save America from Baby Boomers: “13ers will reverse the frenzied and centrifugal cultural directions of their younger years. They will clean up entertainment, de-diversify the culture, reinvent core symbols of national unity, reaffirm rituals of family and neighborhood bonding, and re-erect barriers to cushion communities from unwanted upheaval.” Hmm… Combat diversity, build walls around America, and punish the media… Where have we heard that before?

There is a certain facile appeal in reducing history to the clicking of gears, a certain peace in imagining that events are foreordained by the impersonal forces of History. But there is a danger in accepting that fatalism, particularly when someone like Steve Bannon takes it as license to bring about the destruction he imagines is inevitable. Creating policies with the express purpose of conforming to a fantasy version of history where an Iron Age or Kali Yuga is forever threatening imminent destruction has the painful effect of making it all the more likely that the imagined outcome will indeed come to pass.

WW1 and WW2 were extensions of the same conflict, so the math doesn't work. In between there is the great depression that pretty much led to the rise of the bad guys in Europe and the others in Japan.

The technological leaps post WW2 led to the baby boomers having more of the pie.

The turbulent 1960s was a direct response to the segregated and black listing 1950s. You cannot discount the 1960s for the civil strife at that point. To ignore it is to ignore history.

The second tech boom of the 1980s led to the eventual tech crashes of the 1990s. It is no coincidence the cut off for x Gen to 'why me' or gen y is smack in the middle of the 1980s and the Reagan years, and also to an extent some of it trickles to the 1990s, and the fall of Russia.

X Gen was effectively gone by 1987 but some lingered into 1990.

Millennial was not a term until after the millennium when growing post great recession two, 1998 people, did not want their children to be called 'why me?' anymore in beatnik books.

The pattern does not exist. The fringe is confusing modern books on generations for earlier ones, and cherry picking what they want.

We seem to be living in a second Grunge period, the first being the mid 1990s following the worry times, and leading indirectly to the 1998 crisis.

In this second period a lot of people will complain, but nobody will actually get out and vote and change it, as was the case then. It is a pattern, but not like he thinks.

They've been claiming there were be a super war since the 1950s. Fortunately though now with the information age coming into full bloom, there is no way to start one without immediately being called out on it.

The fringe rebuke is that somehow the bad guys of this generation will try and disrupt he grid, which is actually impossible.

The power elite in control fail to realize that empires do crumble from within, or that the rich are the first to eventually be last, as most revolts are against the rich, not for them.

This is not the end times.

Reply

Americanegro

2/7/2017 10:18:45 am

KAL, you're talking like a homeless person and not making sense, starting with "WW1 and WW2 were extensions of the same conflict". Then you go on to your own arbitrary divisions of generations like "X Gen was effectively gone by 1987 but some lingered into 1990." WTF?

No mention of the Beats, no mention of psychedelics, no mention of the GI Bill. That in a nutshell is the Classic Comics version of why your analysis is defective.

Reply

A Buddhist

2/7/2017 12:13:26 pm

On what ground do you deny that "WW1 and WW2 were extensions of the same conflict"? both were wars in which Germany attempted to assert dominance in Europe. Certainly, the German government of WW1 was swept away by WW1 and the aftermath, but many ideals and key officials from that government strongly influenced the Nazis and closely allied German nationalist movements.

Hellenistic Hero

3/18/2017 03:43:48 pm

Yes, I would like to know that as well.

Only Me

2/6/2017 02:29:11 pm

If the profile on Bannon is true, then, yeah, the idea of interpreting history as a perpetual monolithic cycle is silly.

The generational labels never meant much to me. I could understand Baby Boomers, as there was a measurable change in society after the soldiers came home. The others...not so much.

I see all this as the human need to name and define things, which leads to identity politics. Good or bad, our socio-political views are often subject to labels.

Reply

JLH

2/9/2017 12:47:16 am

Labels never meant much for me either for the most part. I agree about Baby Boomers, and I'd argue that Millennials too are a distinct group given both their upbringing in the digital age and the large-scale impact of entering the workforce late due to the Great Recession. Those things are already having measurable impacts on society and will continue to do so.

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/6/2017 04:18:55 pm

Multiple news stories on the workings of Trump's White House make it look like Bannon is the most influential figure there, having slid into the vacuum created by Trump's lack of intellect and the jettisoning of more experienced advisors like Chris Christie. This insight into Bannon's worldview is very disturbing.

Reply

Only Me

2/6/2017 04:43:29 pm

Christie has stated he wanted to finish his term as governor, so he wasn't "jettisoned".

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/6/2017 05:51:17 pm

Both Christie and several people close to him left the transition team at the same time, just a few days after the election. Several anonymous sources within Trump's campaign/transition team spoke to the media about Christie's exit, as did Roger Stone, who hasn't been a member of the campaign since 2015 but is close to Trump. They all agree that Christie was forced out, though they differ on the reasons why.

Only Me

2/6/2017 06:11:46 pm

I'm going off this interview with Bill O'Reilly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccRqM9FjU30

Between 2:12-3:08, Christie explains it in his own words.

I don't which version is true; I'm just taking the man at his word.

DaveR

2/7/2017 09:45:41 am

I read Christie was forced out by Trump's son in law because Christie over saw the prosecution and incarceration of the son in law's father for fraud, among other crimes.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/7/2017 10:06:53 pm

That is one of the explanations put forward for Christie's ousting, but some of the sources say it was for other reasons.

Americanegro

2/6/2017 04:25:58 pm

"The stereotypes about neither fit me."

There's no such thing as "stereotypes about neither".

The "baby boom" was caused by millions of horny soldiers with GI benefits coming back to impregnate. So the 1943 date is nonsense. What the heck Jason? Are you smokin' Jenkem?

You understand that I am using the dates that the authors provided, not dates that I made up. They claim the baby boom began during the war, when soldiers had kids on the way to war and more on the way back home. Other demographers give different dates.

Reply

Americanegro

2/7/2017 10:28:18 am

"You understand that I am using the dates that the authors provided, not dates that I made up."

No, I didn't get that. I'm sorry. That said, my quarrel is now with the authors and "soldier having kids on the way to war". I view that more as standard issue "GIs failing to use a rubber." Those same dummies would have impregnated if they were out of uniform.

The importance of the GI Bill in creating opportunities for the Baby Boomers by creating opportunities for their fathers cannot be underestimated.

David Bradbury

2/7/2017 04:29:57 am

The 1943 date is not nonsense, it's just not very sophisticated. There were two Baby Booms, the first being a Mini Babyboom in 1942-3 following an upsurge in marriages in 1941-2. The birth rate then declined again, to approximately 1941 levels by 1945, only to rise again, even higher, in 1946-7. Although 1947 was the peak, it did not fall back to 1941 levels (or even 1943 levels) again in the 1940s or 1950s. Clearly, if the war had dragged on longer, the mini-boom would have been more remarked upon as a separate phenomenon (not least because the number of young widows would probably have been much higher).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf

Reply

David Bradbury

2/7/2017 04:32:39 am

Come to think of it, if
There's no such thing as "stereotypes about neither"
- how come I understood Jason's meaning immediately?

Reply

Americanegro

2/6/2017 04:32:33 pm

"Consider this: If World War II had dragged on five more years, the baby boom would have been delayed and all our fanciful generational calculations would all be wrong and we would today be fantasizing about the shared attitudes of those born from 1948 to 1969."

So if WWII had lasted until 1950 ("five more years"), soldiers would have come back and impregnated in 1947? Jason, your Trump issues are causing you to fail basic math.

Reply

Pop Goes The Reason

2/6/2017 05:27:01 pm

Trump and the shower of shite surrounding him have fallen right into Putin's simple trap. His strategy is straightforward and obvious- manoeuvre America into fighting a proxy war for Russia against China. He doesn't mind much whether it's cold or hot, or which one loses, in fact he'd prefer both to lose. With them tied up, he's free to occupy what he thinks he can get away with in Europe.

Reply

Kal

2/6/2017 06:32:22 pm

The generation dates I arbitrarily picked were not set in stone nor official. The only pop culture date that is really, the Baby Boom, began in 1945 or so.

Putin's plan is not for a proxy war, but rather to incite enough already bubbling anxiety and hate among the already suffering masses to instill our version of the fall, like when the USSR split up. Let's not let that happen.

Reply

Titus pullo

2/6/2017 07:45:18 pm

Good comments on the so called generation buckets. I was born in 1963 and never could figure out how I was part of the 60s types as I came of age in the early 80s. A much different time.

On your other points, cities rise and fall, countries rise and fall, companies rise and fall. The one possible take away to so called cycles is when govt takes away your ownership of your body, your property and debases your labor via monetary corruption societies have rapid and very disruptive changes. Good points on Wwi Almost all problems humans face today can be traced to that insane conflict!

Reply

Clint Knapp

2/6/2017 10:58:39 pm

To your point and to expand on it further; I actually just had this conversation a couple days ago with my roommate. She was born in 1979, yet identifies herself more with the traits ascribed to the Millennial generation. I was born in 1982, meaning I literally came of age at the dawn of the Millennium (by popular reckoning and cultural norms of adulthood, anyway- disregarding that a new millennium didn't actually start until 2001), yet most of my attitudes and traits are of those ascribed to Gen X- even though according to the generationalist mindset we should be reversed by virtue of our birth dates alone.

It has, in fact, been that way for much of my immediate family My parents were born at the tail end of the Baby Boomer generation, most of my grandparents at the tail end of the Silent Generation (excepting one grandfather who lies solidly in the middle, having come of age near the end of WWII), and my siblings are close to the end of the Millennial generation- while I would agree my sister falls into that category fairly well, my brother (the youngest of us) is almost GenX in some aspects and Gen Z in others.

In the end one's attitudes and morality are more a circumstance of upbringing and life decisions than any quantifiable "generation" metric. It's laughable to try and categorize generations of people in nice neat little packages the way our authors do, and Jason's point to a rainbow of bleeding colors stands out as one of the better descriptors I've read on the topic in a while.

Reply

mhe

2/6/2017 10:13:53 pm

Dang, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and the Russian Revolution didn't make the charts. Those are my favorites.

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/7/2017 02:10:58 am

And the English Civil War and the wars related to it were far more disruptive to English society than the Glorious Revolution, even if the Glorious Revolution dealt the deathblow to absolute monarchy in Britain.

Reply

flip

2/7/2017 02:23:40 pm

Surprised nobody brought up the fact that we can document things... far harder to forget the past when it's there in photos, videos and text. Isn't that one of the reasons why the Vietnam War was such a big controversy? Because for the first time people could see video of what was going on, not just still photos and written accounts like previous wars, and reacted to the clear brutality of it all.

If Bannon believes in (ca.) 80 years cycles of decay and regeneration of the democratic society, I have to say two things on this:

(a) This means, that he does not think of a change of the US constitution. Because the constitution was always the same, over all the cycles.

(b) He is not so wrong. If he does not believe strictly in the 80 years, but with a more flexible approach, he has got an important idea: Democratic conscience can get lost, and it has to be regenerated.

And the power of demography is strong. It can destroy civilizations.

Furthermore, the idea of a war against big powers like China or (un-reformed) Islam (on the rise) is not so flawed. It can only be avoided, if we are prepared for it. I did not read that Bannon likes the idea of this war, or that he is eager to go to war. He is warning. Why not.

So, all in all, I do not see what is so wrong with Bannon's views? I, for my part, always wonder, how light-hearted liberals go into the future, ignoring this and ignoring that. Radical, un-reformed Islam and the rise of China cannot be ignored. Neither the power of demographic developments.

When Trump announces to amplify the voices of Muslim reformers, he is surely backed by Bannon's advice. What is so wrong with this?

This is just a European perspective. Could be biased.

Reply

Frank

2/9/2017 05:00:17 pm

Thorwald, I see that you are a regular here. And you appear to be at home whether it's a discourse on Atlantis, or on one similar to Atlantis, the USA. Hopefully we will not have our names hijacked by those calling others idiots, as I find your comments on Bannon very interesting, since the are coming from a German national. Have you taken that much time off from your main hobby, Atlantis seeking, that you had still enough time available to have studied our laws and history that close? And also you seem to know the rest well enough too, like Islamic religion and Islamic matters.

It's interesting that many Americans, even if mostly liberals, have noted a pattern develop, starting with Trump's election campaign, on through to his election and staff selection. And Bannon is seen as a big reason in contributing to the perceived pattern development.

This pattern that these Americans see is one reflecting an early development of a possible dictatorial state. In fact, much has been the public, and private conversation that this development pattern can mirror your defunct Nazi party, and Hitler himself. Although there has also been cries of Fascism. But then again, it's not much different, as Hitler fashioned himself after a man of his own hear, his idol, Mussolini, who had all the same negatives as Hitler, but only in a lesser degree, and definitely was not insane as Hitler was.

Since you, being a German national, must have studied the politics of Germany for the 20th century, surely you would have easily spotted this same pattern that the American have. Yet, surprisingly, you seem to not notice it, and are actually praising Bannon somewhat. Strange!

It is totally biased to compare Trump to Hitler. The radical leftists said the same about Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. This radical leftist propaganda becomes boring. Having measure is a virtue. A virtue that liberals really lost over the years. He who is not able to accept that the other side wins an election, he cannot be a democrat.

And did you notice that you have not put forward any *argument* against my arguments? What is so wrong in amplifying the voices of Islamic reformists? Would you rather like to foster radical Muslims, as Obama did? Islam is in urgent need of reforms, and Trump announced to help. Great.

Robert Motley

2/7/2017 07:30:41 pm

When I look at your background and education I find it interesting that you call Strauss and Howe's research "silly". OBVIOUSLY you are a bias political hack. Your article is propaganda because their analysis does not fit your political agenda. I guess because this article is about Steve Bannon you have to disparage the Fourth Turning. If you were being honest in this article it should have been your hate for Trump and Bannon. To include the Fourth Turning is a false flag argument like YOU.

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/7/2017 10:09:48 pm

And yet Jason spent much more time picking apart the obvious illogic of The Fourth Turning than he spent discussing Bannon.

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

2/8/2017 08:08:14 am

You do realize that no single sentence in that post either makes sense internally to itself OR flows into a coherent whole, right?

I propose a game. Let's substitute structurally equivalent words and phrases into these sentences to see if they make more sense. Reverse Mad Libs if you will. I'll begin.

When I look at your pants and shirt, I find it interesting that you call paisley polyester "silly." (It DOES help - that's a simple tu quoque fallacy!)

Reply

Frank

2/9/2017 08:38:37 pm

Thorwald,

I'm really surprised at you! I mean that you feel that I did not present an argument against your argument. Well my friend, is not your argument not an argument at all? And, suspecting you to be quite an astute and highly intuitive, intelligent, scholar of Plato, I therefore posed an "implied" argument, while praising you with my complements. Because, surely, one such as you, in quoting Plato's Republic elsewhere on Jason's blog forum, and also being a well noted, devout, professional Atlantis seeker, must be fully aware of the dangers a democracy faces, any democracy, even the USA, as democracy is the breading ground for tyranny, any tyranny, even Trump's. You did not catch my drift! Hitler too wanted to make Germany "great again" and with this pretense, after first giving a little more greatness to Germany, he proceeded to really make her "Great; a great heap of ruins. And if it wasn't for the USA, which, besides making her great after the war, also prevented the other mass murdering fiend, and tyrant, Stalin, from exterminating the entire German population for revenge, you would not even be here today, posting.

Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.
And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.
Clearly, he said.
In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness—a man may say and do what he likes?
'Tis said so, he replied.
And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?
Clearly.
Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?
There will.
This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colors to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.
Yes.
Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.
Why?
Because of the liberty which reigns there—they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.
He will be sure to have patterns enough.
And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed—there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy—is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful?
For the moment, yes.
And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world—the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?
Yes, he replied, many and many a one.
See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the 'don't care' about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city—as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study—how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honor any one who professes to be the people's friend.
Yes, she is of a noble spirit.
These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.
We know her well.
Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.
Very good, he said.
Is not this the way—he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?

Frank, what about the dictatorship of Obama and his crown princess Clinton? Remember the chorus of those who wanted an unconstitutional 3rd term for Obama? Remember that Obama personally decided whom to kill, without a judge in between? Remember Obama's reckless withdrawal from Iraq? Remember this, and remember that? There is enough to make a (silly!!!) narrative of "Obama the dictator" ... and especially Clinton and her connections to radical Islam.

It makes no sense to make up a similar silly narrative of "Trump the dictator".

And: Obama, too, wanted to make America great again. A president who does not want to make his country great is a failure in job.

Hitler did *not* want to make Germany great again. Hitler wanted to make the "Aryan race" great again. Big difference! (And big failure ...) Hitler never would have said what Trump said about blacks in his inauguration speech. By the way: Obama clapped his hands for applause ... and the bust of Martin Luther King is still in the Oval Office, surprise surprise!

You still have to tell me what is wrong with amplifying the voices of Muslim reformists. Or ... are you a Muslim hater and you do not want Islam to reform?

And by the way: The US are not a democracy in Plato's terms. They are e republic.

I have the strong feeling that you listen too much to dishonest poets ... they have to be expelled from town! Fantastic!

Reply

Frank

2/10/2017 06:55:27 pm

Thorwald,

You are now making it a personal war between the poets and philosophers. And let it be clear, if I were to hate, if hate has to be, I would hate without discriminating; I would hate everyone equally. But the truth is that I don't hate anyone. For instance, like Socrates, and Plato, and Jesus, and many other good men, I only pity others, and not hate them. And I have a very unique idea for doing this, although I'm not at liberty to disclose it to you, as I have heard that you are one of those banished poets. Or at least, according to Oliver Smith, although he does not consider you a poet, he still considers you a banished something, a blogger or poster, whatever the term is for people like us, posting and boasting here.

I realized long ago that you were no mere, plain Atlantis seeker. No indeed! You wear your little Indian feather proudly, wanting all to know that you are a real brave, and have earned your feather. You are so proud of yourself, and also sure of your infallible knowledge of knowing Plato's mind, that you have a mind of your own of leaving to posterity this exceptional intuitive, immaculate conception of yours to engross man's eternal accumulation of knowledge.

And yet, although you sport Plato by quoting him when you see fit, as with silly terminology of what is a democracy/Republic, and your silly attempt at sarcasm with the banished poets, you fail to see that you are still cherry-picking Plato's works. Why, you still fail to understand Plato.

Case in point, I had directed to your superego the idea that there is no need for you to leave an increase to man's knowledge, as you can never add one iota of information that we already do not know, and I pointed out to you that even Socrates points that out. And although, like Diotima instructed Socrates, man is always seeking immortality, even if it's only the immortality of their words and not their bodies, Plato tells us that we are all immortal, therefore there is no need for you to do a great service to humanity, as the soul already knows everything, but we cannot recollect it; knowledge is only recollection, and you do not recall that you have been cherry-picking for ages and ages. However, come to think of it now, there is something that you may add, but it's this; stop trying to add nonsense to our eternal library, and stop cherry-picking from Plato's library tree, which is, basically, the same one in the Garden of Eden, the tree of good and evil, whether it's the Atlantis branch or some other branch.

Surely, God's word, if God exists and converses with only a few good men or women, it is written in Ecclesiastes that; All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new? " Already it has existed for ages.

Therefore, like all things, you are wearisome, and you are not able to tell what it's Plato's mind, as your eyes are not satisfied with seeing just what Plato wrote, and you are adding and subtracting by the bushels and bushels of cherries you are picking from his writings, as well as from others. Therefore you, like any other lost Atlantis seeker, have not given humanity anything, whether under the sun or under the seas, as Atlantis has existed for ages in the state of oblivion. And oblivion is not a Democratic state, according to Plato, as it's a Republic of forgotten, recyclable information to teach fools like you that the soul is immortal, and therefore put a stop to your foolish, narcissist superego, which are, along with your hypocritical roots preventing your soul from escaping the cave of shadows, and thereby making an eternal prisoner of you and preventing you from being a true guardian in Plato's Republic. For that job you have to be pure golden or pure silver. You are still have a lot of iron ore in you, or as I see it, orichalcum ore.

Never mind all these blogs postings, there are nothing short of territorial pissing contests. But they have a good purpose, as they set the tone for current events and spur the mind on, while showing what others think about these events, if they are truthful and given in seriousness, and not in jest.Therefore never mind why, and concentrate on how. Even cherry-picking can be considered an art, if it is done without being found out.

Otherwise your cherry-picking amounts to only flattering yourself, and any flattery which may be bestowed on you by others, such as we see on the Atlantipedia site you directed us to. But these other "so-called" experts, to imitate Trump's twitting, are even more oblivious than you in understanding Plato, and what existence is all about, and also how the Atlantis myth fits the picture.

Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensualit

Reply

Frank

2/10/2017 06:59:21 pm

Thorwald,

Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.

And now since we have reverted to the subject of poetry, let this your defense serve to show why and how the reasonableness of the former judgment in sending away out of our State an art having the tendencies which we have described; for reason constrained us. But that she may not impute to us any harshness or want of politeness, let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry; of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of 'the yelping hound howling at her master,' or of one 'mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and 'the mob of sages circumventing God,' and the 'subtle thinkers who are beggars after all'; and there are innumerable other signs of ancient enmity between them. Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation, poetry, that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her back—we are very conscious of her charms; but we may not on that account betray the truth. I dare say, Thorwald, that you are as much charmed by her as I am, especially when she appears in Cicero, and Virgil, Homer, and the rest? Those cherries of yours come from many trees, and not just Plato's.

Frank

2/10/2017 07:19:36 pm

Thorwald,

Obama clapped? So did just about all present. Melania also smiled when she though she was under observation by her husband during the inauguration, but did you see her facial expression once Trump turned towards the crowd again?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/23/watch_melania_trump_s_smile_melt_into_a_frown_at_the_inauguration.html

You are so naive. Have you never heard of a diplomatic face and diplomatic attire, and diplomatic speaking? One is sometimes, forced to express that which is good for citizens and the nation, but not necessarily what one thinks. Trump may be a tyrant, but he is not a total fool, yet, so as to remove Martin LKs bust from the oval office. And he was told by his campaign managers that he needed some black votes too, if he was to have a chance at being elected. Need makes one a beggar and a liar, unless they can obtain what they need by force. Which by the way, will be sure to come in the future. Anyway, Obama left America is a much better state than the previous administration, and we are all still here. I cannot yet say if anyone of us will still be here to make the same comments about Trump's presidency, if it lasts that long at all.

Frank, Do you remember Michael Moore? Once they said, George W. Bush won the elections because of the ridiculously exaggerated criticism of Michael Moore. And your fears and your criticism of Trump is exaggerated in the same way as Michael Moore's.

Look, it would be worth discussing if you downgraded your criticism to a democratic level. If you said: "Couldn't we solve the problems in a better way than Trump suggests? For example ..."

But you do not say this. You just say: Trump is the devil himself, and we do not have to think about the reason of his actions because they *must* be evil, whatever it is, and the dawn of times is near ... because of Trump. Arguments are superfluous.

And this is an anti-democratic way of thinking, an anti-democratic way of playing the role of political opposition in a republic. The tyrannic mind in this game is your mind.

By the way: You called me a fool time and again.

Reply

Frank

2/12/2017 11:50:07 am

Thorwald, we are all fools, and not just you. To be a fool simply means that you have been had, taken advantage of, made to believe a falsehood, etc. That is what is meant as being a fool. You are a fool because, in the first place, you have fooled yourself in thinking that you have understood Plato, and that you possess unique knowledge and special insight about his Atlantis. Second, you are a fool because you do not understand the gravity of the situation, which again this is due to your blindness to Plato's prophesied cycles of political events, as they are sure to come and repeat, due to unchanging human nature, and our reluctance to heed the warnings. In other words, human nature, and our behavior under certain conditions is something that can be forecast with nearly 100% certainty, like the weather. And, again, you are a fool there too, because you claim to know Plato so intimately, and yet fail to see, in the Republic, Plato/Socrates making plain for us the "facts" and conditions that will, with nearly 100% certainty, result in the making of a tyrant. It's also rather obvious that you, again and again, are indeed a fool, as most of all you have fooled yourself, as this is the worst thing that a fool can do, into believing a falsehood about Plato's Atlantis. Because here too, Socrates/Plato is giving us a prophecy about human nature and the conditions that will ultimately lead to man's demise, and send us all into OBLIVION.

And if you were not such a fool as to be paying attention to those that call you a fool, and accept the fact that like Socrates, you do not know anything, and thereby clearing your mind of all those self-generated ego-centered ideas, and the false notion of your being a superior mind/soul, you would then have removed that veil from your eyes to see that the birth and the political development of the USA closely resembles Socrates' description of the political systems in the Republic, down to the Tyrannical state, although this last not yet having occurred, but which is neigh at hand. Read the writing on the wall! Or rather, on the pages of Socrates' mind, as written on Plato's text books.

But why don't you concentrate your thoughts on your own nation, as history is very likely to repeat itself there too! As once more, like the Nazis and Hitler did before, the now democracy in Germany will likely be hijacked by some other tyrant political system, using some other religion as the new victim to sacrifice to their gods of "superhuman" ideals, a la Nietzsche.

Never mind being a fool, we all are in the end, especially more so those that do not perceive what Plato intended. Because, believe it or not, Socrates was right, as only God knows, as he said. We, his puny possessions, although He made us in His image, and cares for our best, can only have opinions. And therefore, before you cheer on the sidelines when you hear some other puny human claim to know, and thereby claiming to "debunk" someone's hypothesis on Atlantis that happens to differ from yours, remember Socrates' wise words, and also remember that wise advice that once stood at that great place of prophecy, Apollo's Delphi Oracle complex; Know Thyself..... you fool, as God only knows.

But, O Athenians! do not cry out against me, even though I should seem to you to speak somewhat arrogantly. For the account which I am going to give you is not my own; but I shall refer to an authority whom you will deem worthy of credit. For I shall adduce to you the god at Delphi as a witness of my wisdom, if I have any, and of what it is. You doubtless know Chærepho: he was my associate from youth, and the associate of most of you; he accompanied you in your late exile, and returned with you. You know, then, what kind of a man Chærepho was, how earnest in whatever he undertook. Having once gone to Delphi, he ventured to make the following inquiry of the oracle (and, as I said, O Athenians! do not cry out), for he asked if there was any one wiser than I. The Pythian thereupon answered that there was not one wiser; and of this, his brother here will give you proofs, since he himself is dead...........

From this investigation, then, O Athenians! many enmities have arisen against me, and those the most grievous and severe, so that many calumnies have sprung from them, and among them this appellation of being wise; for those who are from time to time present think that I am wise in those things, with respect to which I expose the ignorance of others. The god, however, O Athenians! appears to be really wise, and to mean this by his oracle: that human wisdom is worth little or nothing; and it is clear that he did not say this to Socrates, but made use of my name, putting me forward as an example, as if he had said, that man is the wisest among you, who, like Socrates, knows that he is in reality worth nothing with respect to wisdom.

Frank, the only one who obviously claims to have special insight into Plato's thinking is ... YOU!

S Milligan

2/13/2017 07:32:54 am

An interesting article Jason but could you please refer to the 'UK and 'British' unless you are specifically referring to England or the English. It may seem nit-picking but the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish don't like being forgotten about

I am the historian who was quoted in the Time article about my experiences with Bannon.

I have written eight books of history, and I believe that Strauss and Howe identified a very real rhythm in American and western history. Jason Colavito has plenty of skeptical company and he's entitled to his opinion, but perhaps we should start with one simple fact. In two books in the 1990s, Strauss and Howe predicted that the United States would be in a great crisis involving teh death of our existing order and the creation of a new one sometime in the first 15 years of the 21st century. Anyone who would deny that that prediction has come true, it seems to me, will have no trouble arguing that the earth is flat or that it the sun revolves around it.

Strauss and Howe wrote very ambitious books that no professional academic (including myself) would have dreamed of attempting nowadays. One can argue with them about many details, but their overall model holds up--and not only for the US, as I showed in an article in Monist, "The Great Atlantic Crises." I certainly can't do a point-by-point rebuttal but let me throw in a couple of comments of Jason's comments.

Like many of the students to whom I taught the theory, Jason is upset because Strauss and Howe didn't count the First World War as a crisis. But in the US, the UK, France, and even, to some extent, Germany, it was not--because the old order survived it. (The Weimar Republic had more similarities than differences with the German empire.) The US, Britain and France went "back to normalcy" as soon as they could.

But in Eastern Europe, which is on a somewhat earlier 80-year cycle, the First World War most definitely was a crisis. The Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were destroyed and numerous new states were created. Communism emerged. And guess what? Almost exactly 80 years later, the established order in Eastern Europe collapsed agian, in 1989-90, when Communism fell apart. As a result, Russia under Putin is now in a relatively stable state while we are floundering to keep the republic alive. East Asia, meanwhile, is just a few years behind us on the cycle, as is western Europe. They all took longer to recover from the Second World War than we did. The key issue in the European crisis that is now underway, obviously, is whether the EU will survive.

As for generational boundaries, Strauss and Howe defined them by experience more than by pure demography. Yes, the postwar demographic bulge in the US was 1946-65. You will have a lot of trouble, however, finding anyone born after 1960 who describes themselves as a Baby Boomer. They had a very dfiferent experience. Essentially, a Boomer is anyone who doesn't remember FDR but does remember JFK.

Thanks to the web and the power of these ideas, a large, often shifting group of very smart people have been throwing all these ideas around, testing them, and elaborating on them for 20 years, all the while watching the main predictions come true. There was nothing about the theory, I should emphasize, that foreordained the right-wing outcome that we now face. Many of us in 2009, myself included, thought Obama would seize upon the Fourth Turning to bring back the New Deal. But Obama was committed to the status quo, with a little tinkering to make it work better. Trump and Bannon realize that the status quo died along with the people who created it and really believed in it. That is why, sadly, they will leave a far greater mark on the US than Obama did.
Check historyunfolding.com if you want to continue following these issues,

Reply

Frank

2/13/2017 05:14:21 pm

Thorwald, the more you comment on my comments of your comments, the more you prove to be a fool, time and again, and you stand as accused. You cannot even see that in using Plato's own written words, within them, I had already anticipated how you were going to respond.

You don't know Plato, do you? Don't you realize that I had already answered you before you posted this? "Frank, the only one who obviously claims to have special insight into Plato's thinking is ... YOU!"

Do you think that someone has to, specifically, know a certain something to understand when someone is or is not telling the truth about that particular something?

Don't you see that Socrates had already anticipated this silly one sentence reply of yours? Look here, my multi-subject genius, has not Socrates already made you a fool? Do not cry out against me, even though I should seem to you to speak somewhat arrogantly. Many calumnies have sprung from them, and among them this appellation of being wise; for those who are from time to time present think that I am wise in those things, with respect to which I expose the ignorance of others.

You see, to expose the ignorance of others, like yours, one need not be a subject-matter expert for exposing someone's else claim of expertise in that particular subject matter. Socrates is clearly pointing this out when he himself claims to have no such knowledge, and yet is able to unmask those that also don't have any, but claim to have. Plato makes this very point even more specific in the Theaetetus, with the simile of the barren Mid-wife. Anyway, one need not be a reader of Plato to understand this, as all is needed is a little common sense, and which you seem not have any of that, either.

To put in an easy perspective for you to understand, picture a police detective movie or a television show where commonsense is used by a detective to solve a crime, and for which the detective has no "knowledge" as to who did it. One of my old favorite shows was the TV series, Columbo. But you may not be familiar with it, since it's an American TV show. Lieutenant Columbo was a police homicide detective character, who was made to have the air and appearance of being a clumsy, foolish, and a not too intelligent. However, these apparent shortfalls were always used to his advantage at getting at the truth and identifying the guilty person that committed the crime. And Columbo did it by simply using common sense in assessing the crime scene, the testimony and alibis of suspected and unsuspected persons, and of any eyewitness. Also we need not use Columbo, as any good common sense detective's interrogation tactics of suspects will trip-up the criminal many times, after repeated questioning.

Therefore you were already given a rebuttal before you even accused me of being an hypocrite like you. I'm not one in this case with you, because, in a nutshell, to be a judge of evil, your hypocrisy in this case, one need not wallow in the same mire of hypocrisy. Again, you wallow in the mire of self-conceit, self delusional conceptions of superiority, and the false idea of knowing. And although neither of us really knows anything special about Plato's Atlantis, at least I'm better off than you because I admit of not knowing. Whereas you, like all the sophists of your kind, in all ages, claim to know, and also criticize those that think they know too, but different than you.

Hell, I doubt whether you even have the slightest suspicion that God has got you by your balls, and makes you dance to His tune. Using all that wealth of material knowledge you posses, did it ever dawn on you that "God" is fooling all of us, and nothing is really as it seems?

And don't give me any of Descartes' nonsense; I think therefore I am. Because that will not do, as God can make you think anything he wants, and even make you think and believe that you are real! God only knows that He is real, as you and I, and all the rest of mankind can only have an opinion about our reality. And I hope I'm right about my opinion, otherwise we may all be on a big pile of shit, really! And one need not be God to think like God, as an image of God's thoughts is all that is needed to state an opinion.

How can you or any other serious Atlantis seeker go searching out Atlantis without first accepting Socrates' great panacea for all those sophisticated sick heads? God only knows. Therefore look to God for the directions to Atlantis.

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honorable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the center of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows----Directions to Atlantis from I-95 northbound; take I-395, exit on 1st street, and then find a nice legal par

"The authors claim that history moves in cycles and these cycles of crisis emerge because, after a fixed period of time of around 80 years, the new leaders who have arisen lack personal memories of the last crisis and therefore tend to repeat the mistakes of their elders, causing the failure of institutions and the need to reestablish a world order after a new crisis."

This situation of institutional amnesia or whatever you want to call it, is a valid issue in terms of making mistakes and not learning from the past, but the non personal (written) memory exists to learn from. So you can't expect timing or even event to happen, and personal memory can be substituted for by the memory of those who as young learned from and observed those whose passing creates the memory gap.

But a BIG problem is this: while the military brass etc. may be fighting the last war and so forth (which points to over retention of memory) and according to this theory, this is exactly what you need to be doing (military or other context) in order to not make mistakes yet it is exactly what causes mistakes in military context,

and the people in general forgetting, etc., sure there are mistakes you can make lessons not learned, but what was responded to inadequately in the past, is not exactly the same as what is responded to inadequately in the present. the whole theory presupposes a kind of static quality that doesn't exist, and the lessons of the past SOME of them are useless.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.